Hilary to vote no on Roberts.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
To think that California's **** didn't stink and it was mostly the fed's fault is incredibly naive.

The claim originally made by Che was that California had catagories of racial segregation and that it was worse then most other states in the US. I took objection to that and said it wasn't true.

That doesn't mean nothing racist ever happened in the state but what it does mean is that there was no systematic racial segregation for any meaningful length of time and that the state most certainly was not one of the worst offenders when it comes to racism since half of the country previously allowed slavery and kept up segregation until a generation ago. You know it and I know it. Thanks for playing.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Segregation was your term... no one else mentioned it.

Who's being "willfully blind" now?

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The claim originally made by Che was that California had catagories of racial segregation

Really? Where? All he said that California legally divided the races. Segregation was never mentioned.

Do you think having non-blacks not being able to testify against blacks is segregation?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Personally I am prejudiced against Newport Beach and La Jolla soccer Mom princesses.

LA Jolla Soccer Mom Princesses

[Ted Striker]

.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The claim originally made by Che was that California had catagories of racial segregation

Really? Where? All he said that California legally divided the races. Segregation was never mentioned.

Do you think having non-blacks not being able to testify against blacks is segregation?

OK, Mr. Pandantic. Here's the full original quote.

California legislated racial catagories. You were either white, yellow or black. Mexicans were yellow and Indians were black, by law. After the U.S. took over California, the Hispanic majority was disenfranchised by force and systematically robbed without recourse to the law. Remember the Zuit Suit riots? Most of the Indians that survived Spanish colonialism were exterminated by American settlers, not the Feds. The Asian Exclusion Act, while a Federal law, was enacted at the behest of California.

California has a very racist history. Just cuz you didn't have Jim Crow doesn't mean you weren't among the very worst.

There are two main claims 1) That California's racial history is among the worst, and 2) that the state of California lefislated three different racial catagories. Along with those two main points there were 4 sub points A) Mexicans had their land stolen systematically B) This lead to the Zuit Suit Riots C) American settlers exterminated most of the indians in California who survived Spanish and Mexican exterminations D) That the Federal immigration policy was exclusively due to California.

1. Has been prove to be completely false it is stupid to claim that a short lived rule about who can and cannot testify some how makes California worse then places which allowed slavery and jim crow even if it passed a law disallowing no citizens from owning land.

2. The claim involves the systematic use of three racial catagories which has not been shown. Instead he found one short lived ruling from 155 years ago involving nonwhites vs white. Please notice that the existance of those supposed three catagories has not been shown nor that they were applied in any systematic or large scale way. It is clearly implied that some sort of official racial classification system existed and it would be meaningless to have such a system if racial segregation wasn't the goal. Please feel free to continue playing word games though.

A) Has been shown to be false and instead having more to do with class instead of race. I.E. the rich did fine but the poor got ****ed. That's hardly unique to this state and I'm happy to say it occured much less here then most other places.

B) He was off about the Zuit Suit Riots by about 80 years since those had to do with the Feds deporting illegal aliens during the depression.

C) California's population was to small in the 19th century to have much impact alone upon Federal policy. The claim that Federal immigration laws are due to California pressuring the Feds are pretty bogus. 100-120 years ago we were a fly on New York's ass and even today as the big dog in town we can't get the Republicans in Congress to do anything we want.

[chequita guevara]

I never claimed segregation. Like many Southern states, California defined race intheir law, and when people who weren't of one race or the other showed up, they were pidgeonholed into an existing catagory.

Also, I tossed a bunch event that happened over a several hundred year period, Oerdin. I did not claim that they were causal.

The Zuit Suit Riots happened in 1943, and happened between American servicemen and Mexican American gang members. It was not related to the deportations, which I didn't bring up, because that was Federal and not limited to California (nor to Mexican immigrants--many Mexican-Americans found themselves deported as well).

While California did not have Jim Crow, it did a lot of other very evil ****.

http://home.inreach.com/rtowle/Chronicles/Anti_Chinese.html

http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/2KeyIssues/CaliforniaAnti.htm

1852: Foreign Miners’ License Tax required a $3 monthly license fee on miners ineligible for citizenship (i.e., Chinese).

1852: Commutation Tax required shipmasters to prepare a list of foreign passengers, and ship owners to post a $500 bond for each, which could be commuted by paying a tax of $5 to $50 per passenger. The law was an attempt to dissuade Chinese immigration.

1855: Tax of $50 imposed on shipmasters or ship owners for each foreign passenger ineligible for citizenship (i.e., Chinese). The California Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional in 1857.

1855: Foreign Miners’ License Tax increased to $6 per month, and set to increase $2 higher each subsequent year. Repealed by the state legislature in 1856, establishing the tax at $4 per month.

1858: Chinese individuals were forbidden from landing in California except during weather-related emergencies. The California Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional in 1862.

1862: Chinese Police Tax levied a $2.50 fee on all Chinese living in the state, with a few exceptions. (The term "police" referred to the legislative authority to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the state.) The California Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional later in 1862.

1863: Chinese individuals were disallowed from testifying in criminal or civil cases.

1863: Chinese children were excluded from public schools.

1867: Living areas were required to have at least 500 cubic feet of air for each resident. (Chinese housing was the primary target of the law.)

1870: Steep fines up to $5000 were imposed on individuals who imported Chinese into the state without a "certificate of good character." The California Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional.

1876: Chinese laborers were barred from working on county irrigation projects.

1878: Chinese individuals were barred from owning real estate.

Hell, just google California anti-Chinese.

http://www.coastalpost.com/96/10/10.htm

The Coastal Post - October, 1996
California's Mexican Lands Were Saved By Gringo Attorneys For Themselves
BY JOAN REUTINGER

In spite of the fact that the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War and granted that the Mexican-Californians would keep all their lands, by 1866 all of the Marin grantees had lost their lands.

"That it belonged to somebody under Mexican title was preposterous," said the newly-found Californians, who won the war in 1848. "This was U.S. territory, won on the battlefield, and as U.S. citizens they felt that it was rightfully theirs," wrote Jack Mason in the forward to his book Early Marin. "The history of the land in Marin is one of broken promises, litigation and injustice nurtured on political expediency."

The Mexicans lost their land in various ways by selling the land to Americans, and by astounding legal costs, and by lawyers holding vast tracts of land in lieu of fees.

It seems to us today that everyone was trying to deny the Mexicans their land, which had been granted to them when Mexico ruled California before the war. Of course, this was over 150 years ago, and no one knows now what really happened, but the Mexicans at the time knew right well, and they feebly fought back.

They found a hero in William McKendree Gwin, who took their side. But the irony of it was he only made things worse. On March 3, 1851, the U.S. Senate passed Gwin's Act to Ascertain the Land Claims in California. The Act provided that three members appointed by the President (who at this time was Millard Fillmore) rule on land claims. A government land agent also sat in on the proceedings. The proceedings were very formal. Each side could appeal to the United States District Court and to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This automatically made the entire process extremely expensive, and only the wealthy ranchers could afford it. Historian John Hittel found a name for it.: An Act to Despoil Owners of Land under the Mexican Grants.

Gwin should have known better. He was an intelligent man, a former confidential secretary to President Andrew Jackson. His political know-how got him elected as one of California's two first federal senators. But his Act soon went awry, as only the wealthy could survive this legal marathon. And to make it even worse in Marin, the Court of Sessions levied very heavy property taxes, so that the owners sought to sell their lands.

"Asio sold his Point Reyes sobrante and got out. Pablo de la Guerra got out of Nicasio, as did John Cooper at Nicasio and San Quentin, Garcia at Olema, Briones at Boinas, Borques at Chileno Valley, Mea at Souluayulle, Mrs. Duartes at Buacola and the Indian Camilo at Olompali," wrote Jack Mason. All the original grantees were gone by 1866.

"In the midst of this lengthy legal process, most of the claimists went backrupt," wrote Dewey Livingston in Dairy Farming in Olema Valley, and he continued, "By the close of 1866, vast tracts of Marin County had fallen into the hands of San Francisco lawyers, while not one of the original rancher grantees remained to witness the nearly-completed American takeover of the land."

So Senator Gwin has only added to the Mexican problems. The Bolinas Rancho owner, Briones, sold half the side of Bolinas Lagoon to Isaac Morgan and got rooked because he got nothing for the land.

It's a sorry tale, and one we cannot be proud of. But it was way back then, and soon to be forgotten. There is not one word in the histories about the claims the Indians had, except they worked for the ranchers and were very patient. Today the claims of the Indians are becoming apparent and the Mexicans are listed as "illegal aliens."

[chequita guevara]

I declare you ZPWNED!

[Dinner]

Che, basically you have a collection of laws which were passed and then shortly struck down by the courts shortly there after. You claimed California was one of the worst offenders when it came to racism and so far you are VERY far from proving that. There are 11 confiderate states and 5 border states which had racial slavery. It is impossible to claim that a state which had a tax $4 tax upon Chinese for a few months in 1862 is worse or any where near as bad as the 16 which ahd slavery. Then we have the fact that all of those laws were never applied to the level of Jim Crow plus they died the better part of a century before Jim Crow died. In the 19th century there were anti-Irish and anti-Catholic laws in most states so it isn't surprising that even the most progressive places also had anti-Chinese laws. A good historian knows you must judge people according to the standards of the time they lived in and California in the 1850's was far better then 99% of the world and that's why so many people decided to move her dispite the odd crap law.

In conclusion you claimed California is one of the worst racial offenders and that is just bollucks. It is not enough for you to simply show some racism existed in the history of the state and instead you have to show the amount of racism was worse them almost everyone else. Were a whole race of people enslaved in this state? Was the state ever segregated? No, the anwser is no and that is why California is no where near the worst offenders. Those 16 states are the worst offenders and we were never in the same league.